About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
, everybody. as howard mentioned, a big report about the tax components of the fiscal cliff and what the effects could be on american households. i want to make five basic points that we raised in that study. the fiscal cliff really is big. it would be more than $500 billion in a tax increase. this works out to a tax increase of more than 20%, which is very large. looking at whether this would be the largest tax increase in history. for the average household, that works out to about $3,500. someone who earns around $50,000, it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,000. the second point is it affects virtually everybody. close to 90% of households would see their taxes go up. there are a few folks out there, primarily older seniors and citizens who do not have children who might not be affected, but the vast majority of american households would be affected by going off of the cliff. the first order for business is running through what the effects will be. those of you in the room have a handout that summarizes things. those of you at work and at home should be able to find thi
you're in the position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then. i want to make sure the plumber, said the nurse, the firefighter, it the teacher, the young entrepreneur who does not have money, i want to give them a tax break now. not only did 98% of small businesses like less than to under $50,000. i also want to give them additional tax breaks because they are the drivers of the economy. >> we need to spread the wealth around. in other words, we're going to take joseph money, give it to signature obama and let him spread the wealth around. the whole premise behind the plans are class warfare, but spread the wealth around. i want small businesses that would receive an increase in their taxes. why would you want to increase anybody's taxes right now? these people are going to create jobs unless you take that money for him and spread the wealth around. i am not going to do that. >> number one, i want to cut taxes for 90 5% of americans. it is sure my friend and supporter warren buffett could afford to pay a low tax. in order to give taxes. then exxon mobil which made
are jobs. i will be the only candidate advocating eliminating income tax, corporate tax, abolishing the irs and replacing that with one federal consumption tax. i embrace the fair tax. i think that is the answer to jobs. if the private sector does not create tens of millions of jobs, i did not know what it will take to create tens of millions of jobs. it is the entry to china. i see manufacturing jobs flocking back to the united states. are you hearing these things from these other two guys? no. they are arguing over who will spend more money on medicare. romney said he wants to increase spending for the military and balance the budget. it doesn't add up. i guess we believe in santa claus and the easter bunny and i do not think they are coming. host: gary johnson is with us and will add a third line for third party voters. we will get to your calls in just a couple of moments. what is the strategy for the rest of the election? guest: right now there is a lot of attention that is being drawn to what it is that i am saying. i'm being recognized for being at 6% nationally. i'll ask you an obvi
there be anything surprising that emerges from there? mike the committee be smaller tax >> we were talking about rumors earlier in the context of -- might thed committee be smaller? >> we were talking rumors earlier. probably the u.s. is on the side, a minor concern that may have affected by a day or two. but fundamentally i think this got decided out of an internal logic in china, and not looking at united states. my own personal guess is that if you look at the pool of people eligible to be the next and the commit -- standing committee, we may have some difficulty deciding which fisher going to get pulled out of the pond. it is revealing to look at the fish in the pond, the totality of what they are choosing among and what we're looking at is a more diverse group of people in terms of education, business, law, even humanity, to some extent. we are looking at a broader generations. we are looking at people, we were talking about xi. he has some enormous experience, my those leaders from all over the world visiting his city. i think we are looking at people experienced in the world. when we look
another $5 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, if we get rid of regulations on wall street, then all our problems will be solved and jobs and prosperity will trickle down on all of you, debts will disappear, we will live happily ever after. there is only one problem with that. we tried that in the ticket before i became president. it didn't work. top down economics never works. we don't need to double down on the same trickle-down policies that got us into this mess in the first place. we don't need policies that just help folks at the very top. that is not how the country grows. that is not how we succeed. we succeed when at the middle class gets a bigger, when more people have a chance to get ahead and live up to their god- given potential. far when we very have leaders who write off half the nation as a bunch of the victims who don't take responsibility for their lives. let me tell you, i have been to nevada in line. you guys may get tired of me. but as i travel around the state, i don't see a lot of the victims. i see a lot of hard-working nevadans. [applause] i see stu
of canada to warrant is really a tax on the ground? >> the more important question, paul, is that isn't the red line in the minds of the israeli? canada has been consistent in saying that we continue to encourage the international community, the united nations, to keep the pressure on the iranian regime, to pursue sanctions, to pursue them -- diplomatic pressure where and when we have the opportunity. unfortunately, those opportunities are becoming less and less obvious. they are less and less effective. the preferred option always will be and remains these alternatives to keeping the pressure on on iran to bring about more acceptable behavior. trying to shift to the attitude of this regime and their leadership has proven to be enormous the challenging. >> my question was do you or do you not endorsed the prime minister of israel's red line. >> the israelis are going to make their own decisions. they will consult with their allies. they will continue to signal clearly their alarm over the nuclear ambitions of iran. we will continue to work with them, but these are sovereign decisions.
a tax break. we will think that at least some of these guys who give money are just too forward their beliefs. maybe that is starry eyed. at least in some cases, this is really not about consideration. that is not to say that their beliefs to outline of what material considerations. it is a little harder to tell this story of corruption. you can still tell the story of influence. the point of giving money to a candidate somewhere along the line is to change the way policy is made in this country. that will never go away. what do we do with the guys saying i like certain policies and i want to see more of that. >> there was an interview recently where it was said that there's a possibility of federal investigations. he was convinced it obama wins, they will pursue these. >> why not use the real one? >> the real one has already been flogged to death. >> having spent time -- sometimes the press gets it wrong in assuming that every -- anybody who gives money is a bad person. that is the assumption of the narrative. big bad money people who are out to buy the election. the reality is
where they asked whether you would take the bargain of one dollar's worth of tax increases or $10 worth of basically tax cuts and everybody raised their hands and said they would not accept that. we have become a country where -- it is not just one side, both sides, but more one side now than ever is not willing to be realistic about how we can tackle these challenges. if there is a crisis that i see in the united states for the long term, it is not the temporal issue of how we will deal with money. because i am very confident we will be able to deal with that. it is how will we bring that -- bring back our sense of what we can accomplish together as americans when we are realistic about those challenges. that is the thing i think about with the word "crisis" in this country. >> mayor castro is not the first to suggest that. for 10 years now, we heard that the government is not asking all of us to do enough. >> it is interesting. the word "sacrifice," when i hear a politician say that, it usually means grab your wallet. it usually means increasing taxes. and i will give president obama
five trillion dollars on tax cuts that favor the wealthiest americans, jobs and prosperity will rain down from the sky. everybody will be better off. we will live happily ever after. [boo] - vote.oo - [applause] and the problem was what he is trying to sell is we tried that in the last decade. it did not work then, it will not work now, top down economics does not work. this country does not succeed when the richard gere richard. this country succeeds -- rich get richer. this country succeeds when everybody has that chance to live up to their god-given potential. that is when everybody does better. i do not believe we are going to get very far if we have leaders to write off half of the nation as victims to do not take responsibility for their own lives. [applause] let me tell you, i have spent a lot of time in ohio. i do not need a lot of victims. i see a lot of hard-working people. i see students who are trying to work their way through college. i see single moms, like my mom, putting in overtime to raise their kids right. i see senior citizens who have been saving their entire liv
on his taxes. >> you mentioned the democratic attacks. i want to ask you to go back in history. back in 1967, your father said a ground breaking standard in american politics. he released his tax return. he released them for not one year, but for 12 years. when he did that, he said, one year to be a fluke. when you release yours, will you follow your father's example? >> may be. [laughter] i do not know. i will take a look. audience: boo! >> i will be happy to release them. i know there are some who are very anxious to see if they cannot make it more difficult for a campaign to be successful. i am not going to apologize for being successful. [applause] i am not suggesting these people are doing that. i know the democrats will go after me on that basis. that is why i want to release these things at the same time. my dad, born in mexico, toward, did not get a college degree. i could have stayed in detroit like him and gotten pulled up in the car business. i went up on my own. i did not inheret money. what i have, i earned. [applause] i will be able to talk to president obama in a way n
this transition. i expect that there will be more of these high-profile at tax and -- high-profile attacks and that the enemy will do whatever they can to try to break our will using this kind of tactic. that will not happen. in response to these attacks throughout the past year, general allen has taken steps along with afghan leaders, the afghan army, and isaf to protect our forces and the afghan people and to ensure that our strategy remains on track. most recently, during the heightened tension over the inflammatory video over the it -- on the internet, this included making temporary adjustments on partnered operations between isaf and afghan forces, taking place below the battalion level. i can now report to you that most isaf operations have returned to their normal levels -- normal -- most isaf operations have returned to normal operations. i emphasize we remain fully committed to our strategy of transition to afghan security control. the ansf remains, as general allen has called it, the defeat mechanism of the insurgency. as the president has made clear, we have an enduring commitme
law, federal taxes, a whole host of bedroll laws. it says, for the purpose of federal law, the word marriage means of a legal union between one man and one woman, husband and wife, and spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex. that is the section of the law that president obama has declined to defend. at the house, they have created the bipartisan legal adviser group that is during the defense of these laws since the administration has advocated its role in defending it. -- has abdicated its role in defending it. there are several cases that have petitions for the court to decide amongst. the first one, probably the front runner, is a combination case of massachusetts nurses the department of human services. -- massachusetts vs. the department of human services. the equal protection clause violates the defense of mayor jack -- or the defense of marriage at-the people protection clause because there is no rational basis for it does not pass scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny it must pass is a question. but they are happy to argue both. this case is interesting be
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)